+ All Categories
Home > Documents > PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control...

PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control...

Date post: 15-Mar-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 6 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
113
PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM AND LOCAL CLOUD TECHNOLOGY IN REAL-TIME CONTROL OF THE INDUSTRIAL PROCESS A Dissertation Presented to The Engineering Institute of Technology by Ekwonyeaso Abel Uche In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Engineering in INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION JANUARY 2018 COPYRIGHT © 2018 BY EKWONYEASO ABEL UCHE i
Transcript
Page 1: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM AND LOCAL CLOUD TECHNOLOGY IN REAL-TIME CONTROL OF THE

INDUSTRIAL PROCESS

A Dissertation Presented to

The Engineering Institute of Technology

by

Ekwonyeaso Abel Uche

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Engineering in INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION

JANUARY 2018

COPYRIGHT © 2018 BY EKWONYEASO ABEL UCHE

i

Page 2: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ......................................................................................................................... ix

Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Problem Statement ............................................................................................ 3

1.3 Scope of Study .................................................................................................. 4

1.4 Thesis Hypothesis ............................................................................................. 5

1.5 Thesis Outline ................................................................................................... 5

Chapter 2 Literature Review and Related Work ............................................................ 7

2.1 Literature Review……………………………………………………………. 7

2.2 Fieldbus System ................................................................................................ 7

2.2.1 IEC 61158 Structure .................................................................................. 7

2.2.2 Types of Fieldbus ....................................................................................... 8

2.2.3 Features and Characteristics of Fieldbus System ....................................... 9

2.2.4 Advantage of Fieldbus System ................................................................ 13

2.2.5 Wired and Wireless Fieldbus ................................................................... 13

2.2.6 Wired Fieldbus ......................................................................................... 13

2.2.7 Profibus .................................................................................................... 14

2.2.8 Profibus and The OSI (Open System Interconnection) Layers ............... 15

2.2.9 Profibus Transmission Technology ......................................................... 17

2.2.10 Types of Profibus ..................................................................................... 18

2.2.11 Wireless Fieldbus System ........................................................................ 19

2.2.12 Types of Wireless Fieldbus ...................................................................... 20

2.2.13 Limitations of Wireless Fieldbus ............................................................. 22

ii

Page 3: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

2.3 Cloud Technology ........................................................................................... 23

2.3.1 The Cloud Computing Service Delivery Model ...................................... 25

2.3.2 Cloud Computing Deployment Model..................................................... 26

2.3.3 Characteristics of Cloud System .............................................................. 28

2.3.4 Issues with Cloud System ........................................................................ 29

2.4 FOG Computing Technology ......................................................................... 30

2.4.1 Software Architecture of Fog Technology .............................................. 31

2.4.2 Fog Hierarchy of Operation ..................................................................... 32

2.4.3 Characteristics of Fog Computing ........................................................... 35

2.4.4 Fog Nodes ................................................................................................ 37

2.4.4.1 How Fog Nodes Operate ..................................................................... 38

2.4.5 Comparison between Cloud and Fog Computing System ....................... 38

2.4.6 Local Automation Cloud.......................................................................... 40

2.4.6.1 Local Automation Cloud Properties ................................................... 41

2.4.6.2 Mandatory Core Services and Systems ............................................... 43

2.5 Communication levels in an Industrial Plant .................................................. 44

2.6 Related Work .................................................................................................. 46

2.6.1 Cloud Computing for Industrial Automation Systems ............................ 47

2.6.2 Analysis of Profibus-DP Network Delay ................................................. 50

Chapter 3 Research Methodology ................................................................................ 51

3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 51

3.2 Problem formulation or definition .................................................................. 52

3.3 System definition ............................................................................................ 53

3.4 Model Construction ........................................................................................ 53

3.4.1 Ethernet-based closed-loop control system model .................................. 54

3.4.2 Profibus DP Control system model.......................................................... 55

3.5 Input Data Collection and Analysis ................................................................ 55

iii

Page 4: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

3.6 Model translation and Programming .............................................................. 56

3.7 Verification and Validation............................................................................. 56

3.8 Design of Experiment ..................................................................................... 56

3.9 Experimentation or Simulation and Analysis ................................................. 57

3.10 Documentation and implementation ............................................................... 57

Chapter 4 Experiment Setup and the Simulations ....................................................... 58

4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 58

4.2 Model Systems Architecture Overview .......................................................... 58

4.2.1 Model System Architecture for Local Cloud ........................................... 58

4.2.2 Model System Architecture for Profibus DP ........................................... 60

4.3 Design of System ............................................................................................ 61

4.3.1 Model system components and their specifications ................................. 61

4.3.1.1 The Local Cloud System ..................................................................... 61

4.3.1.2 Arduino Mega 2560 ............................................................................ 62

4.3.1.3 Computers ........................................................................................... 65

4.3.1.4 Wide Area Network Emulator (WANem) .......................................... 65

4.3.2 The Profibus DP Simulation System ....................................................... 67

4.4 Step-by-step experiment procedure ................................................................ 72

4.4.1 Local Cloud System Experiment in LACN ............................................. 73

4.4.2 Method of Latency Measurement ............................................................ 73

4.4.3 Profibus-DP Model Control System Experiment .................................... 77

Chapter 5 Results and Analysis ................................................................................... 81

5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 81

5.2 Result of Local Cloud Model System Experiment ......................................... 81

5.3 Local Cloud Experiment Result Summary ..................................................... 87

5.4 Profibus-DP Experiment Result Summary ..................................................... 88

iv

Page 5: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

5.5 Analysis........................................................................................................... 88

5.5.1 T-Test Procedure ...................................................................................... 89

5.5.2 Result of Analysis .................................................................................... 93

5.5.3 Recommendations .................................................................................... 93

References ................................................................................................................... 94

v

Page 6: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Background Information of Fieldbus System ................................................. 10

Table 2 Physical Characteristics of Fieldbuses ............................................................ 11

Table 3 Transport Mechanism of Fieldbus Standards ................................................. 12

Table 4 Performance of Fieldbus Standards ................................................................ 12

Table 5 Overview of Transmission Values .................................................................. 17

Table 6 Supported Fiber-Optic Cable Types ............................................................... 18

Table 7 Bands in Electromagnetic Spectrum ............................................................... 20

Table 8 Requirement Comparison Between Fog and Cloud Computing .................... 39

Table 9 Contrasting Cloud and Fog Computing .......................................................... 40

Table 11 Response Time as Converted from Digital Oscilloscope ............................. 80

Table 12 Result of the Local Cloud Model System Experiments ................................ 81

Table 13 Summary of the Local Cloud Model System................................................ 87

Table 14 Results from the Two Simulations................................................................ 89

vi

Page 7: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework .............. 2

Figure 2 Decomposition of the Automation Hierarchy by Cyber Physical System (CPS) With Distributed Services ........................................................................... 4

Figure 3 References Between OSI model and Profibus. .............................................. 15

Figure 4 PROFIBUS Protocol Communication Architecture. ..................................... 16

Figure 5 A Typical WirelessHART Network Architecture. ........................................ 21

Figure 6 Typical ISA100.11a Network Configuration. (From ISA100.11a-2011 Standard, Wireless systems for industrial automation: Process control and related applications, 2011.). ................................................................................. 22

Figure 7 Cloud Computing System ............................................................................. 24

Figure 8 Building Blocks of Cloud Computing System ............................................. 25

Figure 9 Components in Fog Software Architecture .................................................. 31

Figure 10 Different Uses of the Same Data ................................................................. 33

Figure 11 Analytics for Fog Computing. ..................................................................... 35

Figure 12 Arrowhead Local Automation Cloud .......................................................... 41

Figure 13 Arrowhead Core Systems and Their Use .................................................... 44

Figure 14 Different Communication Levels in a Plant ................................................ 45

Figure 15 ISA95 Architecture of Automation Systems ............................................... 46

Figure 16 Global Information Architecture With the Use of Cloud Computing ........ 48

Figure 17 Cloud-based Architecture for Industrial Automation .................................. 49

Figure 18 Flowchart Representing Typical Steps and Decisions for Conducting a Simulation Study .................................................................................................. 52

Figure 19 Block diagram of NCS ................................................................................ 54

Figure 20 Networked Control System ......................................................................... 58

Figure 21 Ethernet-Based Local Cloud Architecture Overview .................................. 59

Figure 22 Profibus-DP Simulation Model ................................................................... 61

Figure 23 Arduino Mega 2560 Control System Model ............................................... 62

vii

Page 8: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Figure 24 Arduino Mega 2560 Shield ......................................................................... 63

Figure 25 Arduino Mega 2560 RS-232 / RS-485 – Hardware .................................... 63

Figure 26 WANem Advanced Configuration Interface. .............................................. 66

Figure 27 Brad DRL-DPS-SRM Direct-Link Gateway/Profibus-DP Slave Module With 24VDC Power Supply Adapter ..................................................... 67

Figure 28 General Technical Specifications Brad DRL-DPS-SRM Direct-Link Gateway/Profibus-DP Slave Module ................................................................... 68

Figure 29 TCP’IP-TO-RS232/RS485 Converter ......................................................... 69

Figure 30 Tektronix Portable Oscilloscope (THS3000 Series) ................................... 70

Figure 31 Configuration Interface of the Profibus Master Simulator .......................... 72

Figure 32 Reflector Process known as the PING PONG (PINGING method) ............ 74

Figure 33 Advanced Configuration Interface of WANem .......................................... 75

Figure 34a Arduino Model Control System Web Interface for Real-Time Control When the ON command is Issued ........................................................................ 76

Figure 34b Arduino Model Control System Web Interface for Real-Time Control When the OFF Command is Issued ..................................................................... 77

Figure 35 Profibus Master Simulator Communication Settings Configuration Interface ............................................................................................................... 78

Figure 36 Selection of the GSD File and the Input/Output Parameters ....................... 79

Figure 37 Data Input Through Profibus Master Simulator .......................................... 80

Figure 38 Simulation 1 Experiment Ping Result. This is Without WAN/LAN Emulator (WANem)............................................................................................. 82

Figure 39 Result of Ping Response in Experiment 1, Simulation 2............................. 83

Figure 40 Result of Ping Response in Experiment 1, Simulation 3............................. 84

Figure 41 Result of Ping Response in Experiment 1, Simulation 4............................. 84

Figure 42 Result of Ping Response in Experiment 1, Simulation 5............................. 85

Figure 43 Result of Ping Response in Experiment 1, Simulation 6............................. 86

viii

Page 9: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

ABSTRACT

The Cloud technology, which has emerged as a new computing concept or

technology has provided the guide for breaking the geocentric barrier in real-time

control of the industrial process. The Cloud technology through its inherent and

derived services has provided dynamic and flexible infrastructure [78], which could

provide an opportunity for real-time industrial process control for enterprise

organizations, whose operations, facilities and operation equipment are

geographically distributed and dispersed. The aim is to enhance and improve safe

operation, productivity, and customer service. In 2012, CISCO pioneered the FOG

computing technology for bringing the advantages and power of cloud computing

closer to where the data is being generated and acted upon [79]. However, the

requirements of the industrial automation systems differ significantly from the office

and enterprise world because industrial automation involves real-time control, which

is sensitive to delay, jitters and packet loss.

The essence of this thesis is to perform experimental comparisons between

latency and jitters used in a local system, and delay and jitters used in the Profibus-DP

network in real-time industrial process control. This study also presents an overview

of various technologies both in cloud and profibus systems. The aim is to provide an

objective outcome, which can be utilized to guide various interests in the investment

decision making. It provides a guide in the direction of research in the field of

industrial network and communication for real-time control, especially where there

are geographically dispersed and distributed facilities and service areas or locations.

A few related works are examined to identify gaps and opportunities for improvement

and advancement in the development of latency-proof systems in the field of real-time

ix

Page 10: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

control, using capabilities of cloud technology to break geographical location barriers.

The experimental comparison is purely based on the simulation method using the

Wide Area Network Emulator (WANem) developed at the TATA research centre in

India, Arduino Mega 2560, Profibus-DP Master Simulator, and a few other off-the-

shelf protocol gateway and network devices. The results of the comparison

experiment is analysed using T-test.

x

Page 11: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Real-time control is much desired in order to respond timely to variation in the

operation of an industrial process. The essence is to produce quality products and

services in a timely and safe manner to satisfy the needs of the customers. The aim of

real-time control is to ensure that the response time for command and control, data

acquisition, query and feedback between field devices, and the central control in an

industrial process is as small as possible to achieve a prompt response to customers’

needs, shorten product production time, prompt and accurate data provision and

enhance the overall quality of products and industrial process safety for the good of

all stakeholders, environment and industrial facility.

With the advent of cloud computing and the Internet of things (IoT)

technology, some experts have proposed their implementation in the industrial

process control, manufacturing, logistics and financial services. Much focus has been

given to data collection, data analysis and data utilization, which is great for

enhancement in productivity [1] and business services. It has also been a platform

opportunity to exploit virtualization and consolidate computing resources toward

enhancing productivity and optimizing cost [2].

However, the need to mitigate and overcome the network issues and

challenges encountered in using the cloud system in real-time control of industrial

processes has led to the concept of local cloud or fog technology [3], which comes

from the idea of migrating real-time industrial process control responsibility from the

1

Page 12: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

“Global Cloud” to the “local Cloud” [4]. This is to achieve more service-based

industrial automation as depicted in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System Based on the Arrow-Head Framework [4].

This thesis project aims to study the effect of latency and jitters in real-time

control of industrial process when fieldbus and local cloud systems are used,

respectively, or separately, as part of the industrial network infrastructure. Latency is

generally known as a delay in data transmission, while jitters is a measure of variation

in delay as data or control command is transmitted from one hop to another along a

path of transmission up to the final destination. The study involves investigation on

how delays or latency and jitters affect the closed control loop and its response time

when local cloud technology is utilized on one occasion, and when Profibus DP,

which is part of fieldbus system, is used at another occasion to control the industrial

process. Performance comparison of these two different technologies in this study is

based on these parameters – latency, jitters and response times recorded in the

experiment when these technologies are used separately for the real-time control of

2

Page 13: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

the same industrial process under their individual normal applicable implementation

conditions.

This thesis examines current industry trend and proposes a better mitigation

mechanism for real-time industrial process control issues, using a prototype, and a

number of experiments to evaluate the performance of the mitigation strategies. The

mitigation mechanism focuses mainly on delay and jitters that are larger than the

response period of closed-loop control system. The proposed mechanism is to

improve the closed control loop response time that is approximately close to the

closed-loop control performance in situation, where it executes locally, without any

servers (local cloud) and intelligent devises included in the loop.

1.2 Problem Statement

Fieldbus system used in the industrial network as a digital two-way

communication link [1] in the field operates at a low level in the structure of control

system hierarchy. The cloud computing system used in handling and storage of data

operates at higher levels with the end-user. There is a strong desire to harness the

benefits of cloud computing for the overall improvement of the industrial process

control. In a bid to provide a Web-Oriented Automation (WOA) based on cloud

technology, a WOA Architecture has been created [5] as shown in Figure 2. However,

little consideration is given to the fact that automation deals with real-time data

acquisition, monitoring and control of the industrial processes, and as such, is highly

affected by latency and jitters that are often experienced in the internet infrastructure.

The fieldbus system operates with low latency, required in real-time control of the

industrial process. The cloud system, which is connected with Wide Area Network

(WAN) exhibits higher latency, and is most often unpredictable.

3

Page 14: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Figure 2 Decomposition of the Automation Hierarchy by Cyber Physical System (CPS) With Distributed Services [6].

The challenge is to determine how to effectively integrate a cloud system into

a closed-loop control system and overcome the effect on latency when cloud

technology migrates from the higher level end-user in the industrial automation

hierarchy to the low field or control level, where it is called local cloud [7].

1.3 Scope of the Study

The objective of this study is to develop a platform for the analysis of and

comparison between the communication performances of the profibus system and that

of local cloud in terms of real-time control of the industrial process. The thesis

involves setting up of an experimental test platform for the evaluation of different

militating communication parameters encountered both in the fieldbus system and in

the local cloud. The main parameters of focus in this study are latency and jitters. This

study leads into making a proposal for the design and implementation of suitable

industrial network communication system, which would harness the benefits of both

4

Page 15: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

the fieldbus system and the local cloud for the enhancement of real-time monitoring

and control of field equipment and the industrial processes.

The scope of this study is limited to the experimental analysis of the

performance of the profibus and local cloud. It also covers the demonstration of the

recommended proposal for implementation in industrial communication network.

This project proffers a cost-effective, efficient, and reliable solution to improve issues

of latency and jitters militating against real-time control in the industrial process.

1.4 Thesis Hypothesis

The hypothesis is that migrating cloud system from the high end-user level in

Automation Hierarchy to lower field-device level and implementing it as local cloud

would actually solve the problem of latency, and jitters has limits in real-time control.

This is geared toward minimizing the effects of latency and jitters associated with

cloud computing integration in real-time control and communication in the industrial

process. However, a comparison of effect latency and data loss in local cloud

networked-control system is compared with that of profibus networked-control

system would provide a guide on proper investment in industrial communication

infrastructure.

1.5 Thesis Outline

Section 1 gives an introduction about the topic of this thesis. The background

information on the technologies relating to the topic is presented together with some

related work done by some experts in the field in this study. Section 3 gives an

overview of the study methodology. The setting up of a platform for the

experimentation and simulation of the latency and jitters for the comparison of

5

Page 16: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

performance between the profibus DP system and that of the local cloud system is

explained in Section 4. Section 5 provides a discussion on the results and

recommendations.

6

Page 17: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND RELATED WORK

2.1 Literature Review

The literature review in this thesis concentrates on the presentation of the

industrial communication standards, technologies, architecture or platforms, and

infrastructure, which have been developed to enable real-time industrial process

control and automation. It also examines the previous work done to improve real-time

industrial communication and process control.

2.2 Fieldbus System

Fieldbus is a digital two-way multi-drop serial communication link between

intelligent field devices [8] and between sensors and transmitters. It is a local area

network (LAN) dedicated for industrial automation [9]. It is being used to replace 4 to

20 mA point-to-point centralized network. Fieldbus is used to establish distributed

control network and links for connecting isolated smart devices such as sensors,

transmitters and Intelligent Electronic Devices (IEDs) in the field [8]. The

standardization of Fieldbus was proposed to International Electrotechnical

Commission (IEC) in 1984 [9]. The standardization was recognized by

IEC/TC65/SC65C WG6 in 1985 [9]. The standard for fieldbus is now ISA SP 50 and

the IEC 61158 (Industrial communication networks – Fieldbus specifications), which

was reviewed last in 2008 [10].

7

Page 18: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

2.2.1 IEC 61158 Structure [10]

IEC 61158 structure is divided into six parts [10]:

• “IEC 61158-1: Fieldbus for use in industrial control systems – Part 1:

Introductory guide” [10].

• “IEC 61158-2: Fieldbus for use in industrial control systems – Part 2: Layer

specification” [10].

• “IEC 61158-3: Fieldbus for use in industrial control systems – Part 3: layer

service definition” [10].

• “IEC 61158-4: Fieldbus for use in industrial control systems – Part 4: Data

link layer protocol specification” [10].

• “IEC 61158-5: Fieldbus for use in industrial control systems – Part 5:

Application layer service definition” [10]

• “IEC 61158-6: Fieldbus for use in industrial control systems – Part 6:

Application layer protocol specification” [10].

2.2.2 Types of Fieldbus [11]

Fieldbus was initially categorized in types as follows:

• Type 1 = Foundation Fieldbus H1

• Type 2 = ControlNet

• Type 3 = Profibus

• Type 4 = P-NET

• Type 5 = Foundation Fieldbus HSE (High-Speed Ethernet)

• Type 6 = SwiftNet (a protocol developed for Boeing, and has been since

withdrawn)

• Type 7 = WorldFIP

• Type 8 = INTERBUS-S

The IEC 61158 standardization was reviewed in 2008, in which case version

of the standard, the fieldbus types were reorganized into Communication Profile

Families (CPFs) as follows [11]:

8

Page 19: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

• CPF 1: FOUNDATION Fieldbus

• CPF 2: CIP

• CPF 3: PROFIBUS

• CPF 4: P-NET

• CPF 5: WorldFIP

• CPF 6: INTERBUS

• CPF 7: SwiftNet (withdrawn)

• CPF 8: CC-Link

• CPF 9: HART

• CPF 10: Vnet/IP

• CPF 11: TCnet

• CPF 12: EtherCAT

• CPF 13: Ethernet Powerlink

• CPF 14: EPA

• CPF 15: MODBUS-RTPS

2.2.3 Features and Characteristics of the Fieldbus System

The features and characteristics of the fieldbus system depends on different

fieldbuses. The fundamental differences in data transfer methodology makes difficult

to make general comparison in terms of the features and characteristics [11].

However, the features and characteristics are presented in this thesis beginning with

the background of the fieldbus technologies show in Table 1.

9

Page 20: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Table 1 Background Information of Fieldbus System [12].

It is obvious from Table 1 that different fieldbuses are developed by different

organizations based on their needs. Table 2 shows a detailed physical characteristics

comparison compiled by ER-Soft S.A [12].

10

Page 21: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Table 2 Physical Characteristics of Fieldbuses [12].

In this report, there is also a need to present the transport mechanism and

performances of different fieldbus standards in order to guided the reason for the

choice of the fieldbus standard adopted for this study. Table 3 presents the transport

mechanism, while Table 4 shows fieldbus standards performances based on a study

conducted by ER Soft S.A [12].

11

Page 22: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Table 3 Transport Mechanism of Fieldbus Standards [12].

Table 4 Performance of Fieldbus Standards [12].

12

Page 23: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

2.2.4 Advantage of Fieldbus System

Fieldbus system has many advantages over conventional point-to-point wiring

and here some of the key ones:

a. Deployment of fieldbus system leads to a significant reduction in wiring,

connections, junction boxes, marshalling cabinets, cable trays, and supports.

This reduction in wiring and connection material is the result of the multi-drop

capability of fieldbus system.

b. The two-way communication enhances additional information such as

calibration and configuration data, diagnostic and test information, device

documentation such as device tag numbers; serial numbers, service history, etc

can be communicated over the network. Equipment maintenance and servicing

become more centralized.

c. The communication of fieldbus is digital and as such the accuracy is not

affected by noise, interference or electrical loading effects.

d. Fieldbus system can be developed and constructed by any vendor because it is

an open standard. It is also interoperable with products from other

manufacturers.

2.2.5 Wired and Wireless Fieldbus Systems

Apart from classification of fieldbus systems in terms of features and

performance, fieldbus can also be classified into wired and wireless standards.

13

Page 24: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

2.2.6 Wired Fieldbus

Almost all the fieldbus standards listed in Table 1 are wired fieldbus. Some of

the wired fieldbus commonly used in industrial networking are listed as follows:

a. Foundation fieldbus,

b. Profibus and its variants, and

c. Actuator-Sensor Interface (AS-i).

Wired fieldbuses are more reliable in real-time control of the industrial

process. They are typically used in a process unit containing many flow, pressure,

temperature, level, multivariable, and other instruments, all within a reasonable

distance from each other [13]. The more instruments in a relatively small area,

particularly complex multivariable units, the more a fieldbus makes sense [13].

However, in this thesis, the focus of study on wired fieldbus system is

Profibus.

2.2.7 Profibus

Profibus, which stands for Process Fieldbus, is an open, vendor-independent

fieldbus industrial network standard [8] that was first promoted in 1989 by the

German department of education and research (BMBF), then used by Siemens [13],

and adopted as a part of IEC 61158 in 2000 [13].

Profibus is a Master-Slave type of protocol with an additional tool to allow

multiple masters. In profibus, all devices go through a startup sequence during which

they join the network. Each slave maintains a failsafe timer. If the master does not

talk to it within a certain time limit the slave goes into a safe-state. The master must

14

Page 25: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

go through the startup again before further data exchange communication can occur.

It transmits both power and data on the same cable.

2.2.8 Profibus and The Open System Interconnection Layers

The way the technology module of Profibus is designed, it is made compliant

with the Open Systems Interconnection layer reference model (OSI) [14]. In this

case, the communication process between two nodes traverses seven layers. Layer 1,

which is the physical layer, takes care of transmission technology covering the type of

medium, transmission mode and standards. Layer 7, otherwise known as application

layer, deals with the interface among various applications. Figures 3 and 4 show

references between the OSI model and Profibus.

Figure 3 References Between the OSI Model and Profibus [14].

15

Page 26: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Figure 4 PROFIBUS Protocol Communication Architecture [15].

PROFIBUS uses layers 1, 2 and 7 [14]:

• Layer 1 defines the physical transmission. With PROFIBUS, there are copper-

wire versions (RS485 and MBP) and optical and wireless transmission.

• Layer 2 defines the description of the bus access method, including data

security. With PROFIBUS, this is the master-slave method in conjunction

with the token method.

• Layer 7 forms the interface to the application and thus represents the link

between the application and communication. With PROFIBUS, the

communication protocol PROFIBUS DP is used here.

16

Page 27: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

• The actual application process lies above layer 7 and is not part of the OSI

model.

2.2.9 Profibus Transmission Technology

RS485 transmission technology is preferred for use with tasks that require a

high transmission speed, but which do not require explosion protection (intrinsic

safety) [14]. This is widely used in the production industry and is also found in parts

of the process industry. The RS485 used for profibus is a twisted, shielded copper

cable. The bus structure enables non-reactive coupling and decoupling of stations and

incremental commissioning of the system [14]. Table 5 shows the overview of the

transmission values [14].

Table 5 Overview of Transmission Values [14].

In an environment with heavy electromagnetic and electrostatic interferences,

or when bridging long-distance optical transmission via fiber-optic cables,

17

Page 28: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

PROFIBUS is available. The corresponding PROFIBUS guideline specifies the

technology available for this. Table 6 shows the supported fiber-optic cable types.

Table 6 Supported Fiber-Optic Cable Types [14].

2.2.10 Types of Profibus

Architecturally, Profibus is divided into three main types and they are as

follows:

a. Profibus Decentralized Peripheral (DP)

Profibus DP is a high-speed variant of Profibus protocol developed

specifically for communication between automation systems and decentralized

equipment. It is used in control systems where the access to Input-Output-distributed

devices are deployed. It substitutes the conventional 4 to 20 mA HART systems or in

24 Volts transmissions. It uses the RS-485 physical medium or fiber-optics. It

requires less than two minutes to transmit one input–output Kbyte and is largely used

in critical time controls [15]. Also, in Profibus DP network system, all the input and

output cards are remotely located in the field instead of being installed in the

Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) rack.

18

Page 29: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

b. Profibus Process Automation (PA)

This is a variant of profibus used in process automation, where automation

systems and process control systems connect with the field equipment, such as

pressure and temperature transmitters, converters, positioners, and others. It may also

replace the 4 to 20 mA standard. Profibus PA is mostly deployed in hazardous

environments. Profibus PA is also used for connecting PLCs to computers.

c. Profibus Field Messaging System (FMS)

This variant of Profibus is used for communication between Programmable

Logic Controllers (PLCs) and Distributed Control Systems (DCS). It is also used for

interconnecting IEDs in the field for the purpose of exchanging data and messages.

2.2.11 Wireless Fieldbus System

Wireless fieldbus system in industrial network is used as an unguided medium

to transmit electromagnetic wave or signal between transmitters and receivers in the

field [17]. Wireless transmission uses the whole electromagnetic spectrum, which has

a range of 3 kHz to 900 THz [17]. Table 7 below shows the radio spectrum, which

indicates appropriate channels adopted by various wireless technologies. Wireless

fieldbus share the same advantages of wired fieldbus over traditional point-to-point

serial communication system. The benefits of avoiding cabling and associated issues

of cable cuts and the availability of radio technology has encouraged the development

of various wireless fieldbus technologies, which are now utilized in the industrial

network infrastructure.

19

Page 30: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Table 7 Bands in Electromagnetic Spectrum [17].

2.2.12 Types of Wireless Fieldbus

The various wireless technologies adapted in the industrial communication

network are as follows:

a. WirelessHART

Wireless Highway Addressable Remote Transmission (WirelessHART) is the

first Wireless Mesh Network Communications Protocol designed to meet the needs

for process automation applications [8]. It was officially released in September 2007

as part of the HART specification and was a part of IEC 61158. The WHART

specification was approved by the IEC as an international wireless standard (IEC

62591 Ed. 1.0) for wireless communication and process automation in March 2010. It

makes use of Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) channel – hopping scheme

20

Page 31: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

based on IEEE 802.15.4 standard, mesh network protocol and retry mechanism to

provide robust and reliable communication [8]. This capability is lacking in other

known wireless communication technologies such as WiFi, ZigBee and Bluetooth.

Figure 5 shows a typical WirelessHART network architecture.

Figure 5 A Typical WirelessHART Network Architecture [17].

In Figure 5 above, there are six devices, which form the wirelessHART

network. They are field device, adapter, gateway, network manager, security

manager, and handheld device.

b. ISA100.11a

This is a wireless sensor network standard developed by the International

Society of Automation (ISA) in 2009. It provides reliable and secure wireless

communication in the field of industrial automation for noncritical monitoring and

control applications. ISA100.11a can integrate with HART, Foundation Fieldbus,

21

Page 32: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

PROFIBUS, and others through device adapters, network protocol pass through

tunneling by mapping using interface objects [18]. Network topologies associated

with this standard are Star, Star-Mesh and Full Mesh topologies [19]. A typical

ISA100.11a network architecture is shown in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6 Typical ISA100.11a Network Configuration. (From ISA100.11a-2011

Standard, Wireless systems for industrial automation: Process control and

related applications, 2011.) [19].

2.2.13 Limitations of Wireless Fieldbus System

“WirelessHART and the other available standards such as ISA 100.11a, WIA-

PA, ZigBee, and IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks

(6LoWPAN) are mainly made for monitoring applications, and the standards lack a

proper downlink communication channel” [19]. They do not offer deterministic

communication [19]. They all need to be revised in order to enable fast wireless

control applications, which have refresh rates of about milliseconds [19]. In this

project, wireless fieldbus is not used alone. The objective is to use wired fieldbus

(Profibus DP) and also simulate real-time process control via wireless fieldbus

22

Page 33: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

communication system using a software (OPNET) and Arduino Wireless Shield as

wireless fieldbus interface to control the network.

2.3 Cloud Technology

Cloud computing is defined as an aggregation of computing power (Central

Processing Unit, Random Access Memory [RAM], Network Speeds, Storage

Operating System software) for delivery as a unified entity to a service over a

network (usually on the internet), rather than physically having the computing

resources at the user or customer location [20]. In the year 2000, cloud computing

was first introduced and now it has become popular. Development of the cloud

computing happened in the first decade of the twenty-first century and reached the

peak of its expectations by the end of the decade. Grid and cluster computing

architectures are the predecessors of the cloud architecture. Figure 7 shows a

schematic of a cloud system.

23

Page 34: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Figure 7 Cloud Computing System [20].

Cloud architecture is based on the aggregation of hardware components that

are accessed and used as a unified entity. The details of the aggregation are hidden to

the user, and thus the complexity of scaling up is negligible.

The pay-as-you-go policy introduced by cloud computing service providers

helps users to scale their service demand accordingly. Cloud computing helps lift off

the responsibility of acquiring powerful infrastructure, operations and maintenance

challenges from enterprises. Figure 8 below shows the building blocks of cloud

computing adopted from the Cloud computing Conceptual Reference Model of

National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST) Cloud Computing reference

architecture published in the NIST Special Publication 500-292 [33] and defined in

NIST 800-145 [34].

24

Page 35: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Figure 8 Building Blocks of Cloud Computing System [27] (adopted from the

Cloud computing Conceptual reference model [33][34]).

2.3.1 The Cloud Computing Service Delivery Model [20]

a. Software as a Service (SaaS)

SaaS model allows using software applications as a service to end-users. SaaS

is a software distribution model in which applications are hosted by a vendor or

service provider and are made available to customers over a network (internet). SaaS

is becoming an increasingly prevalent delivery model as underlying technologies that

support Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) or Web Services. Through internet, this

service is available to users anywhere in the world [20].

25

Page 36: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

b. Platform as a Service (PaaS)

This is the model, which provides platform and environment for developers to

build applications and services. This service is hosted in the cloud and accessed by the

users via internet [10].

c. Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS)

This is the infrastructure that provides access to computing resources and

services in a virtualized environment on the internet. It provides computing

infrastructure such as virtual server space, network connections, bandwidth, load

balancers, and internet protocol (IP) addresses.

2.3.2 Cloud Computing Deployment Model [27][33][34]

Four deployment models are defined in NIST definition of cloud computing,

and they are as follows:

Public Cloud

This is cloud computing system provided to clients by a third-party service

provider through the internet. The service provider charges users as per the resources

they nominate to access and utilize. Although it is public, each user’s data and

allocated resources are not made visible or transparent to other users.

a. Private Cloud

Private cloud computing system is built, operated and maintained by a private

enterprise, exclusively for its own business and operation. There are two variations of

this deployment model [35]:

26

Page 37: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

1. On-Premise Private Cloud [35] – This is a private cloud sited in the data

center of the owner-enterprise. It is also called internal. This model provides a

more standardized process and protection, but is limited in aspects of size and

scalability. The capital and operational costs for the physical resources is

borne by the owner. This is best suited for applications that require a complete

control and configurability of the infrastructure and security.

2. Externally Hosted Private cloud [35] – In some instances, some

organizations do want to have private cloud hosted in their data center, but

externally with a cloud provider, where the provider facilitates an exclusive

cloud environment with full guarantee of privacy. This is best suited for

enterprises that neither prefer a public cloud due to sharing of physical

resources, nor totally acquire and host the cloud computing system due to risk

and lean operational resources.

b. Community Cloud

This is a type of cloud deployment model in which the cloud is controlled and

used by a group of organizations that have shared interests, such as specific security

requirements or a common mission [27][33][34]. The members of the community

share access to the data and applications in the cloud.

c. Hybrid Cloud

This a combination of both the private and the public cloud computing system

deployment models. In this type of model, the objective is to provide the users the

opportunity of outsourcing non-business-critical data, information and processing to

the public cloud, while keeping business-critical services in the private cloud.

27

Page 38: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

2.3.3 Characteristics of Cloud System

Cloud system has five main characteristics defined by the NIST, which have

since been redefined by number of architects and experts [26]. The inherent features

of the cloud system make it attractive to businesses, manufacturing and process

industries with multiple regional operational locations. These key characteristics are

shown in the essential characteristics section of Figure 8 given above.

a. On-demand Self-service [27]

This characteristic feature enables consumers to allocate computing

capabilities and services for themselves without human interaction of the service

providers.

b. Broad Network Access [26][27]

Network and access capabilities are available in cloud computing system

through standard mechanisms that promote its use in heterogeneous thin or thick

client platforms such as mobile phones, laptops and PDAs [26].

c. Resource Pooling [26][27]

Multiple users have the ability to concurrently or simultaneously utilize

computing resources pooled together by the service provider to serve multiple

customers, with different physical and virtual resources dynamically assigned and

reassigned in accordance with the customers’ demand.

d. Rapid Elasticity [26][27]

Computing resources, storage and network resources provided to customers

are made elastic in such a way that they can automatically expand outward and

inward in line with customers’ needs.

28

Page 39: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

e. Measured Service [26][27][28]

The metering capability of cloud systems automatically use inherent metering

service to control and optimize resource use, appropriate and tailored accordingly to

the type of service. Resources such as storage, processing, bandwidth, and active user

accounts are controlled by the metering capability of the cloud system.

2.3.4 Issues with Cloud System

Despite the great attractive characteristics of the cloud system, it has some

issues that hinder its efficiency in real-time industrial process control. These

limitations are explained as follows:

a. Latency and jitter issues [29]

Latency or delay in cloud system manifests in two similar modes – delay in

the provisioning of resources and delay in resources accessibility due to internet

network issues. Manufacturing and industrial process control require reliable,

uninterrupted, high-speed communication [29] between central control and field-end

devices to ensure optimal quality control and timely process safety interventions. This

cannot be guaranteed in cloud system, which uses the internet as its communication

backbone

b. Bandwidth limitation

When customers have multiple resources, applications, locations or sites and

field-end devices to monitor and control, availability and allocation of bandwidth

becomes a big issue, no matter the type of network topology adopted.

29

Page 40: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

c. Security issue

The public cloud is not to be totally relied upon for transmission of monitoring

and control data for industrial process because any security breach could disrupt

services

2.4 FOG Computing Technology

The term fog computing, coined by Cisco in 2012 [21], refers to the need for

bringing the advantages and power of cloud computing closer to where the data is

being generated and acted on. Fog computing reduces the amount of data that is

transferred to the cloud for processing and analysis, while also improving security, a

major concern in the IoT industry [22]. In industrial process automation, its

applications are made possible in an architecture and implementation of industrial

automation by enabling servers and other intelligent devices with data processing

capabilities to process raw data close to the source from field devices such as sensors,

transmitters and cameras before the data is transmitted to the cloud. Fog technology is

also called Edge technonlogy [39].

A fog-computing strategy provides decentralized computing by bringing the

intelligence of the cloud closer to the end devices. It is one of many options that

machine builders and factories are presently considering. A central server requires

high costs for hardware and software, and fog computing services offer new

possibilities and connectivity options. Local data processing captures more process

data but requires data transport, exchange, storage, analysis and security.

30

Page 41: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

However, the objective of fog computing system is to reduce the amount of

data that needs to be transmitted to the cloud for processing, analysis and storage,

while providing timely and real-time response or interaction with intelligent or smart

field-end devices. The fog stack gets data from sensors to the machine controller, and

performs analytics locally. This way latency, which is a huge challenge in cloud-

based real-time control, would be drastically reduced.

2.4.1 Software Architecture of Fog Technology

The software architecture of fog technology hinges on key components of fog

computing technology as shown in Figure 9 below.

Figure 9 Components in Fog Software Architecture [39][40].

a. Heterogeneous Physical Resources [39]

31

Page 42: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Fog nodes are heterogeneous in nature. They range from high-end servers,

edge routers, access points, set-top boxes, and even to end devices such as vehicles,

sensors, mobile phones, etc. Different hardware platforms have varying sizes of

random access memories, secondary storage capacities and platforms to support new

functionalities. Also, different platforms run different operating systems and software

applications, leading to various hardware and software capabilities.

The Fog technology, which is heterogeneous in nature would also have

network infrastructure that is heterogeneous in nature. The range of network platform

is from high-speed links, which connect enterprise data centers and the core to

multiple wireless access technologies such as 3G/4G, LTE, WiFi and other similar

technologies toward the edge.

b. Fog Abstraction Layer

This layer provides uniform and programmable interface for seamless resource

management and control. It also provides generic Application Programming

Interfaces (APIs) for monitoring, provisioning and controlling physical resources such

as CPU, memory, network and energy.

c. Fog Service Orchestration Layer

This layer performs the following functions:

1. Provides dynamic, policy-based, life-cycle management of Fog services.

2. It manages services on a large volume of Fog nodes with a wide range of

capabilities achieved with the following technology and components:

o Foglet Software Agent

o Distributed Database

o Policy-Based Service Orchestration

32

Page 43: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

2.4.2 Fog Hierarchy of Operation

The fog hierarchy of operation is a system-level operation architecture that

migrates elements of computational capability, networking and storage gradually

from the cloud through to the edge of the network. Figure 10 below shows typical

operation hierarchy of fog system derived from the concept of bringing data

computation closer to the local intelligent devices called fog nodes or edge devices.

Figure 10 Different Uses of the Same Data [25].

Fog node takes data produced by local embedded devices and sensors,

processes it, stores part of the data and transmits required part to the cloud for usage

in the enterprise level. The first tier of the architecture is used for Machine-to-

Machine (M2M) interactions and supports real-time applications. In this, the first-tier

local server or the fog node preprocesses data from the field-end devices and passes

them on to the higher tiers for further processing, storage and transmission to the

cloud. This concept is known as hierarchical data processing [25][32]. The M2M

33

Page 44: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

interaction is the key aspect toward increasing the intelligence of Smart field devices

[26, 27]. When the above architecture is utilized, fog is capable of providing sub-

seconds responses [28].

In [29], fog computing is used for one of the most computationally intensive

tasks, namely, brain-state classification, where it achieves low response times to

enable augmented brain–computer interaction [25].

The second and third layers of the fog architecture also deal with M2M

interaction, real-time analytics, visualization and reporting, for example, human to

machine (H2M) interactions. The second layer provides seconds to sub-minute

responses. Consequently, the second layer can handle soft real-time tasks, M2M

interactions and H2M interactions. The last layer is responsible for analytics. It

provides response times from minutes up to days for transactional analytics. Two

different architectural concepts regarding the third layer can be developed:

independent fog devices connected with the cloud and interconnected fog devices

(smart grids) to exploit the advantages of cooperation [25][30][31]. It should be noted

here that the higher the tier, the wider the coverage range.

34

Page 45: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Figure 11 Analytics for Fog Computing. Credit: Cisco [43].

2.4.3 Characteristics of Fog Computing

Fog computing has some characteristics, which makes it important for real-

time application. These features are explained as follows [36][37]:

a. Edge location, location awareness, and low latency

Fog technology from inception is intended to support endpoints with rich

services at the edge of the network, including applications with low latency

requirements such as gaming, video streaming, and augmented reality. Video cameras

are now used in parking lots, buildings and other public and private spaces to increase

public safety. The sheer bandwidth of visual (and other sensor) data being collected

35

Page 46: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

over a large-scale network makes it impractical to transport all of the data to the cloud

to obtain real-time insights. Proximity to the edge devices, computing power, storage

and use of fieldbus technology enhances speed of data transmission.

b. Geographical distribution

The services and application target of fog technology are widely distributed.

Therefore, the data gathered from field-end devices are distributed through fog nodes.

Proxies and access points, which are part of fog network play a key role in making

sure high-demanding signals such as video are distributed beyond the local vicinity

without latency.

c. Support for mobility

Fog applications support and enable the use of mobile techniques such as

Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) to communicate with mobile devices [38],

decoupling of device identity from location identity and requiring distributed

directory system.

d. Real-time interactions

A key feature of fog is the capability for real-time interaction with field-end

devices rather than batch processing.

e. Heterogeneity

Fog technology can adapt and can be adapted to a wide range of

environments. Fog nodes come in different form factors and can be deployed in any

network environment.

f. Interoperability and Federation

Fog computing system has the ability to seamlessly support certain services-

driven variety of communication protocols as deployed by various service providers.

36

Page 47: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

g. Large-scale sensor networks

The applications, protocols and resources associated with fog computing

enables it to support large number of sensor networks.

h. Support for on-line diagnostic and interplay with the Cloud

2.4.4 Fog Nodes

This is the fundamental element of fog computing, which is the collection of

modular hardware and software elements that can be configured to perform the

specific functions required at various levels of the network hierarchy by the mix of

Internet of Everything (IoE) applications the network is expected to support [41]. The

higher the fog node position in the network hierarchy, more sophisticated the

hardware and software configuration and performance. The fog nodes that are lower

in network hierarchy or closer to the field-end devices have relatively simple

hardware and software configurations and modest performance specifications,

whereas those that are higher in the network hierarchy or closer to the cloud have

more sophisticated and advanced performance close to those of high-end servers and

high bandwidth networking equipment [41].

In terms of hardware configuration, Fog nodes can be categorized into single

board configurable platforms and high-capacity modular platforms [41][42]. There

are different ways Fog nodes can be implemented. They can be deployed on

traditional network elements such as routers, servers, storage engines, appliances,

gateways, edge devices or access points, or as stand-alone fog boxes.

37

Page 48: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Fog nodes can be scaled to any form factor, memory, network performance

and persistent storage size. They can also adapt to many different deployment

environments.

In terms of software configuration, fog nodes are highly virtualized machines

with multiple virtual machines running under a highly capable hypervisor. That

hypervisor includes real-time enhancements and security extensions needed to serve

the needs of critical fog applications.

2.4.4.1 How Fog Nodes Operate

This provides a summary of how the Fog nodes operate. The summarized

system of operation is as follows:

• Fog nodes receive feeds from intelligent or smart field devices or IoT

devices using any protocol, in real time.

• The Fog nodes then run IoT-enabled applications for real-time control and

analytics, with millisecond response time.

• The Fog nodes later provide transient storage for processed data, often 1–2

hours.

• Finally, they send periodic data used for developing business intelligence

to the cloud and utilize command and control information for real-time

industrial process control.

2.4.5 Comparison between Cloud and Fog Computing System

This section examines the differences between cloud computing and fog

computing so that cloud characteristics have very severe limitations with respect to

quality of service (QoS) demanded by real-time application requiring almost

immediate action by the server or real-time control of the industrial process. Tables 8

38

Page 49: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

and 9 present the contrasting characteristics of fog or edge computing against cloud or

core computing.

Table 8 Requirement Comparison Between Fog and Cloud Computing.

Requirements Cloud Computing Fog Computing

Latency High Low

Delay jitters High Very low

Location of service Within the Internet At the edge of local network

Distance between client and server

Multiple hops One hop

Security Undefined Can be defined

Attack on data enroute High probability Low probability

Location awareness No Yes

Geo-distribution Centralized Distributed

Number of server nodes Few Very large

Support for mobility Limited Supported

Real-time interactions Supported Supported

Type of last mile connectivity

Leased Wireless

39

Page 50: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Table 9 Contrasting Cloud and Fog Computing.

Cloud Computing Fog Computing

Data and applications are processed in a cloud, which is time-consuming for large data

Instead of processing and presenting from a centralized cloud, fog operates on the network edge. So, it consumes less time

There is a problem of bandwidth clogging due to frequent transfer of every bit of data over the cloud channels for processing

There is less demand for bandwidth because every bit of data is aggregated at certain access point instead of sending of the cloud channels

Slow response and scalability problem as a result of servers that are located remotely

By setting small servers called edge servers or local cloud in the proximity and visibility of users and intelligent or smart devices, it possible for fog computing to have smaller response time and avoid scalability issues

2.4.6 Local Automation Cloud [7][55]

“Local cloud is defined as a number of IoTs within a physical proximity” [55].

The Arrowhead project developed the concept of local automation cloud [7][55] to

ensure interoperability and issues of the IoT, especially in the automation domain are

resolved [7][56]. The concept is also geared toward ensuring that IoT or edge of field

devices utilize Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) to provide comparable services

being provided by the global cloud in addition to ensuring quality of service and real-

time automation application activities [7][55]. In this project, local cloud system is a

server, which is integrated in the closed loop control network, which is part of the

LAN. The local cloud idea is to let the local cloud include the devices and systems

required to perform the desired automation tasks. So, providing a local room that can

40

Page 51: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

be protected from outside activities. Fog nodes, edge nodes and local automation

cloud are all geared toward migrating global cloud functionalities to the field or edge

level. Figure 12 shows the Arrowhead Local Automation Cloud.

Figure 12 Arrowhead Local Automation Cloud [55].

2.4.6.1 Local Automation Cloud Properties

The Arrowhead Framework local cloud have provided a number of properties

important to automation. There are some of the properties that are related to cloud

technology are part of them, while others are related to real-time, engineering,

security, scalability and functionality. These properties are summarized as follows:

a. Self-contained

There are no external resources needed to establish the local cloud. This

property allows local operation to be independent of external resources. This feature

ensures that local cloud has the capability of creating a closed cloud boundary. This is

the reason why a local automation cloud is proposed to have [7][55][57]:

41

Page 52: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

• Device, system and service registry, which perform the following

functions:

- Allowing of discovery of devices and keeping of tracks of devices,

software systems and services deployed within a local cloud using

registry [57].

- Provision of data on which systems are registered with a local cloud,

metadata of these registered systems and the services these systems are

designed to produce or consume. This function is carried out using the

service registry.

- The provision of a unique device identity and metadata using device

registry.

• Service orchestration: This aspect of local cloud property enables it to

perform the following functions:

- System-of-System (SoS) run-time configuration

- Provision of orchestration rules, which define service produced by a

particular system is to be consumed by another particular system.

• Service authentication and authorization. This property of local automation

cloud enables it to carry out the following functions:

- Provision of authentication of service consumers and authorization for

service consumption.

b. Automation support [55][57]

• Support for automation system design, configuration, deployment,

operation and maintenance

• Enabling event-based information exchange

• Enabling information exchange audit

• Support for communication QoS

c. Provide a security fence to external networks [7][55][57]

• Secure bootstrapping and software update

• Support for device, system and service metadata

• Support for protocol and semantics transparency

• Support for secure administration and data exchange with external

resources

42

Page 53: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

d. Interoperability between systems [57]

“This property provides a structure for information on interfaces, service

protocols, methods, datatypes, semantics, encoding, and compression provided by a

service producing system within the local cloud. Based on these, service consumers

can be properly matched with service providers. Furthermore, through protocol and

semantics translation devices/systems featuring different service protocols, semantics

and encoding can be made interoperable.” [57]

e. Inter-cloud service exchange [57]

This is the property that enables inter-cloud service exchange by ensuring that

service exchange administration such as service discovery, authorization,

authentication and orchestration becomes possible between local clouds.

f. Security

Security property ensures the following functions happen in the local cloud

system:

• Provision for authentication of a service consumer, authorization of service

consumption and protection of payload data.

• Provision of methodology for the secure deployment of devices, systems and

services

• Provision of methodology for secure software update.

2.4.6.2 Mandatory Core Services and Systems

In order to establish local automation cloud, the following mandatory core

services and systems are required:

a. The Service Registry system

• This system enables publication service instance(s) by a service

provider

43

Page 54: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

• It also provides a service consumer the capability to find or discover

what service instance(s) it desires to consume.

b. The Authorization system

• Enables a service provider to determine which consumer(s) to accept.

c. The Orchestration system

• Enables remote control (orchestration) of which service instance(s) a

consumer shall consume.

Figure 13 Arrowhead Core Systems and Their Use.

2.5 Communication Levels in an Industrial Plant

Making industrial processes smarter and more efficient to respond to

customers’ needs and produce high-quality products at reduced cost in a safe manner

requires real-time control of the present day complex industrial processes. This leads

to increase in the number of instruments and the quantity of data being transmitted

and retrieved from field devices. To achieve real-time control of industrial process

44

Page 55: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

requires handling data, voice, video, and command and control signals. This puts a lot

of demand for communication in the industrial environment.

Industrial communication is divided into three levels; namely, cell, field and

sensor levels. This is shown in Figure 14 below.

Figure 14 Different Communication Levels in a Plant.

The communication can be vertical as well as horizontal within a level. At

sensor/actuator level both communication and power signals are transmitted in the

same cable. Communication at this level is by binary signals. The field level contain

devices such as transmitters, drive units and Input/Out modules. Some devices at the

field level, such as transmitters transmit limited amount of data and can be powered

via bus, while others like drivers transmit a lot of data and are powered by an external

power source. Process stations are found at the cell level and they transmit very high

volume of data. However, data transmitted by equipment or process station at the cell

level are not as time critical as data transmitted by devices in the sensor and field

Levels. This is why in the thesis, attention is focused on fieldbus devices and local

cloud, which operate at the field level and the sensor or actuator levels. All fieldbuses

studied in this thesis operate at the field level.

45

Page 56: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Figure 15 ISA95 Architecture of Automation Systems (adapted from [53]).

2.6 Related Work

The use of cloud computing in industrial automation is not a completely new

idea. But most of the existing works focus on higher levels than at the field level. At

the enterprise level, where centralized data centers operate, cloud computing is used

for data analytics useful for building business intelligence [44–46] as depicted in

Figure 15 above. However, very little work is done so far that involves cloud

computing within control loops in the industrial automation [45], [47]. The issue of

46

Page 57: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Networked Control System (NCS) has already been worked and resolved in several

studies [48], [49]. The following options were taken in resolving the issue:

a. Use of various tuning procedures in NCS to tune the controller to compensate

network delays or data dropout [50]. In the case of this study, the local tuned

controller moved to the local cloud or fog system and delay mitigation

mechanisms are utilized on the actuator-sensor side [50].

b. Studies done by Hegazy et al. [51] also proposed a delay compensator based

on a smith predictor to mitigate the delays of a remote server. However, the

smith predictor is a model-based predictor, but in this study the goal is to have

a simple mitigating mechanism on the edge device side that IoT devices can

work with. This study is geared toward investigating the cases, where the

delays are considerably longer than the sampling period.

2.6.1 Cloud Computing for Industrial Automation Systems

The desire to make manufacturing and industrial process flexible and smart

has led to building intelligence into sensors, transmitters and other field devices.

Vogel-Heuser et al. [80], proposed a new architecture as global information

architecture for industrial automation. This newly proposed automation architecture

consists of two main layers shown as two cones, which are placed between business

and technical processes. In this new automation hierarchy, the lower layer represents

the migration of field and control layers in traditional automation hierarchy pyramid

including devices and functionalities, while the upper layer represents the process

control and management layers on top of the control layer in the automation pyramid

[80]. Omid Givehchi and Jurgen Jasperneite [81], in their paper titled “Industrial

Automation Services as part of the Cloud: First Experiences,” [82] presented a

solution on the use cloud computing to reengineer the current automation architecture

or hierarchical automation pyramid, which was proposed by Vogel-Heuser et al. [81].

In their solution, as shown in Figure 16 below, special automation functions and

47

Page 58: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

services postulated directly as cloud technology SaaS from the IT-cloud as well as

Automation-Cloud (AT-Cloud). The alternative to this is the use of Platform as a

Service component (PaaS) of the cloud computing technology as an automation

platform to deliver specific needs for integration, for example, process logs and plug

and play parameters.

As shown in Figure 16, AT-Cloud is offered to provide functions and services

at lower levels and IT-Cloud hosts applications and services in upper levels of the

automation [81].

Figure 16 Global Information Architecture With the Use of Cloud Computing

[82], Based on [80].

The combination of both IT-cloud and AT-Cloud was proposed as Information

Model [81]. Therefore, the integration of both IT-cloud and AT-Cloud can be

replaced by using Everything-as-a-Service (XaaS) cloud system component, which is

48

Page 59: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

represented by a single cloud system called a cyber-physical system (CPS). The

integration between the cloud and real devices can be enabled by encapsulating

services and functions inside delivery standards. Omid Givehchi and Jurgen

Jasperneite [81] proposed a replacement of the IT-Cloud and AT-Cloud with SOA

known as XaaS for automation, as shown in Figure 17 below. The implementation

proposed is Control as a Service (CaaS) component of cloud system.

In actual implementation, the team decided to use Azure-based private cloud

system to develop cloud-based control system. The proposed implementation could

not achieve determinism because generic cloud hypervisors have no support for real-

time applications, and also internet-based system of communication suffer from

latency.

Figure 17 Cloud-Based Architecture for Industrial Automation [79].

2.6.2 Analysis of Profibus-DP Network Delay

In 2005, Dr. TAO Jun, WANG Zhan-lin [83] of the School of Automation

Science, Beihang University, Beijing carried out a study on Profibus-DP network

49

Page 60: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

delay and how it influences control and presented his findings in a paper titled

“Analysis of PROFIBUS.DP Network Delay and Its Influence on the Performance of

Control Systems” [80]. The segmented data transmitted in the Profibus-DP network

into system data and user’s programming data, data of configuration of the system

and the other part of system states data. The system data, which are data from sensors

and transmitters, are classified as real-time and high-priority data, while user’s

programming data, data of configuration of the system and the other part of system

states data are classified as non-real-time and low-priority data [83]. This

classification helps in the calculation of data transmission delay in a Profibus-DP

network. The summary of the work is that Profibus-DP network handles real-time

data transmission better than other types of network because it uses both classification

and prioritization of various types of data. In the Profibus network, high-priority data,

which are the real-time data, are first handled no matter their sizes and how long it

takes to transmit them. This is why, latency and jitters are minimal in Profibus-DP

network.

50

Page 61: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

In order to study the characteristics and challenges of real-time

communication in industrial systems, modelling and simulation of real industrial

systems approach is adopted. This approach has long been utilized by researchers,

analysts, designers and other professionals for ease of experimentation and studies of

physical and non-physical behaviour of systems and processes to enhance

advancement in technology, application and response to challenges [54]. Simulation

is used to represent the real-life situation in which servers, WANem, Control system

unit and simulate control signal from the local cloud server web-interface to control

the control system unit. Software applications and laboratory models are used to

create an ideal environment for the demonstration of real time of the industrial

process through local cloud. Profibus-DP Master Simulator is a typical simulator used

in this research project to mimic fieldbus communication system.

This simulation study has been divided into nine steps enumerated as follows [54]:

a. Problem formulation or definition [54][59]

b. System definition [59]

c. Model construction [54]

d. Input data collection and analysis [59]

e. Model translation and programming

f. Verification and validation [59]

g. Design of experiment

h. Experimentation or simulation and analysis [59]

i. Documentation and implementation [54][59]

51

Page 62: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

The flowchart shown in Figure 18 below represents these steps.

Figure 18 Flowchart Representing Typical Steps and Decisions for Conducting a Simulation Study [59].

3.2 Problem Formulation or Definition [54][59]

This thesis started with the formulation of the research problem statement,

which provides the goal and the conceptual framework of the study. The solution to

the real-time control issue of latency encountered on Ethernet and internet-based

platform is the main objective leading to the formation of the conceptual framework

of this study. The approach adopted is to carry out a comparative performance

analysis between Profibus-DP, which is a well-known effective fieldbus industrial

communication standard, and the emerging local cloud technology. Experimentation

52

Page 63: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

and simulation of real-time control of a control process using these variables provides

a platform for data collection. The goal in this phase is to compare the effectiveness

of real-time control through local cloud on one aspect and Profibus-DP on the other

aspect to recommend a reliable communication and control standard free of delay and

jitters.

3.3 System Definition [59]

In this phase, a high-level definition of the system architecture is provided.

This step also specifies the system parameters to determine the requirements for the

simulations to investigate issues with real-time control through cloud system. The

requirements are made quantitative and measurable to enable evaluation in the last

phase. The different parts of the architecture must be identified as well as their

functionalities [25]. The detailed system requirements and components are given in

Section 4, where the system architecture is presented in detail. The dynamic

interactions between the different components should be specified as well. All

constraints and assumptions are also stated in this step.

3.4 Model Construction

This part defines the structure, behavior and views of the experimental

platform architecture. This is also referred to as model formulation. The structure of

the system here is a control-loop set up in a control network. A server, which has

capabilities of data collection, computation, processing and storage is deployed to be

a component in the closed control loop as depicted in Figure 19 below.

53

Page 64: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Actuator Process Sensor

Controller

LAN/WAN

Figure 19 Block Diagram of NCS [25].

In this thesis, to carry out effective real-time control performance comparative

analysis, two different closed-loop control systems are modelled for this study and

they are:

a. Ethernet-based closed-loop control system model

b. Profibus-DP closed-loop control system model

3.4.1 Ethernet-based closed-loop control system model

The Ethernet-based closed-loop control system model involves the connection

of a Web Server, Ethernet switch, Computer running Network monitoring Software

(WANem), Arduino UNO control system with input/output modules, temperature

sensor and multi-colour light-emitting diodes (MLED). The Arduino is programmed

to switch the MLED ON and OFF through a web program in it and a web interface

provided by a computer used as a Web Sever. The Arduino controller, its program,

and its input/output devices represent the industrial control process. The Web server

represents the local cloud, through which ON/OFF real-time control command is

passed to the Arduino control system. The Network monitoring system running

WANem software application (WANem from TATA Research Centre, India) is used

54

Page 65: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

for setting and monitoring latency and jitters. The configuration of static route in the

Web server helps direct all communication and control traffic to the Arduino through

WANem server.

3.4.2 Profibus-DP Control system model

To simulate real-time closed-loop control from a Master Control system using

Profibus-DP communication protocol, HMS/Anybus Profibus Master Simulator is

connected to a slave control via serial communication system using a profibus

converter with RS232 to RS485 converter to connect to a control system.

3.5 Input Data Collection and Analysis [59]

The availability of data about the system is of great importance in the

construction of its model. This step ensures that the type of data to be collected is

dependent upon the objective of the study. The construction of the simulation model

and the collection of data have a constant relationship. Therefore, the type of data and

the amount of data may change as the model develops. Data is required as inputs to

the model and for validation of the model [59]. The data collection experiments are

performed on two different models – real-time industrial process control through local

and through Profibus-DP communication standard. In this study, the data collected are

data transmission delay (latency) and variation (jitters). On one aspect, these data are

collected real-time when the replica of industrial control process (Arduino Control

system) is controlled through modelled local cloud (Web server and WANem) in a

local control network. On another aspect, similar data are collected when the replica

of industrial control process is controlled via a Profibus-DP communication modelled

system. The data collected from these two simulation processes, which form the

results of the experiments are compared as input data to the study in order to arrive at

55

Page 66: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

a reasonable conclusion, which would produce recommendations for system

improvement in real-time industrial control processes.

3.6 Model Translation and Programming

In this step, the model is translated into programming, which is a computer

recognizable format [54]. There are many general and special purpose simulation

languages used in writing simulation programs. In this study, WANemand Profibus

Master Simulator are special-purpose software simulation programs utilized.

3.7 Verification and Validation [59]

The purpose of this step is to ensure that the model would do exactly what it is

built for, to represent in terms of the system characteristic behavior. Verification is the

process of ensuring that the model behaves as intended, usually by debugging and

cross-checking all setups. In this study, verification and validation are achieved

through trial simulation runs. When the real-time control is performed through local

cloud and Profibus Master Simulator, respectively, the results of the trial simulation

runs are compared with established standard real-time responses, respectively.

Settings are adjusted and fine-tuned and the trial simulation runs are repeated until

benchmarked standard response is achieved. Then, the actual experiment would

commence.

3.8 Design of the Experiment

We used simulation to experiment the model. To make results reliable, it is

important to design simulation experiment to obtain results within some specified

tolerant limits and at a reasonable level of confidence [54]. This is what is designed to

achieve in this phase.

56

Page 67: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

3.9 Experimentation or Simulation and Analysis [59]

In this phase, the deployment of alternative models is involved, which would

serve the purpose of validation of real-time control performance in both the Ethernet-

based model and the Profibus-DP industrial communication model. As stated earlier,

real-time control via local cloud and through Profibus communication network are the

two alternatives. Here, we used simulation runs and statistical methods for comparing

the performance of alternative systems with that of the real system [59].

3.10 Documentation and Implementation [54][59]

In this last phase, simulation program procedures are documented for use in

similar situations in the future. The documented program can also be modified and

used for different systems. Documentation consists of the written report and or

presentation. It allows the user to change parameters of the model at will to

investigate the influence on the outputs, to find combinations that can give optimal

results and performance. Discussion of the implications of the results of the study is

carried out based on the results obtained. The best course of action is identified,

recommended, and justified.

The implementation aspect involves setting up of the instruments and model to

provide input interface, processing unit and output interface. Trial simulation runs are

necessary for the perfection of the setup process.

57

Page 68: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

CHAPTER 4. EXPERIMENT SETUP AND THE SIMULATIONS

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter, the model prototype, experimental setup, and the simulations

details are presented. In the first instance, this chapter presents the model system

architecture. Then, it gives a detailed description of the model system components

and their specifications. It also provides a step-by-step experiment procedure. The

simulations and results are presented at the end of this chapter.

4.2 Model Systems Architecture Overview

In this section, the goal is to explain the model system architecture we adopted

in the investigation of performance comparison between local cloud and Profibus-DP

in real-time industrial process control. To achieve this, we set up two systems models

– one for local cloud performance in industrial communication and the other for

Profibus-DP performance investigation in real-time industrial control.

4.2.1 Model System Architecture for Local Cloud

Figure 20 Networked Control System [25].

58

Page 69: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

The addition of a remote server to a control loop can introduce latency, jitters

and packet loss. Figure 20 shows that the controller is connected to the sensors and

the actuators either through LAN or WAN [25]. When the controller is connected to

the sensors and actuators through a LAN, the remote server is regarded to be a local

cloud or fog node, which is located close to the control loop. But when it is connected

via a WAN, it is considered to be a cloud, which results in so much latency [25]. To

model this NCS and carry out real-time control performance evaluation, we represent

this NCS here with a control system model architecture shown in Figure 21 below.

Figure 21 Ethernet-Based Local Cloud Architecture Overview [25].

Real-time control command is issued from a Web server in the private cloud

through WANem or local area emulator () to the Arduino, which is a model of the

control system. WANem, which can be used for either LAN or WAN emulation is

utilized to set latency, jitters and packet loss parameters. The response is monitored in

59

Page 70: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

the web server using Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) network monitoring

method.

4.2.2 Model System Architecture for Profibus-DP

In the case of Profibus simulation in this study, Profibus Master Simulator

from HMS Anybus [60] is used as the master, while Arduino Mega 2560 with its

input/output modules is used as the slave. The Arduino Mega 2560 has the same

program as in the case of the local cloud. The difference here is that RS485 shield is

attached to the Arduino Mega 2560 to provide a serial interface for connection to the

Profibus-DP network. The Profibus Master Simulator installed in Dell Latitude E6230

is Windows 7 Professional Service Pack 1 [61] with a docking station to ensure

provision of COM port for serial connection between the Profibus Master Simulator

and the Arduino Mega 2560. The operating system running in this Dell Latitude

E6230 is Windows 7 Professional Service Pack 1. The processor handling all data

processing and computation is a fourth-generation 2.9 GHz Intel Core i5-3380M

processor [62]. To ensure protocol translation between the Profibus Master Simulator

and the Arduino Mega 2560, we used BradCommunications TM Profibus gateway,

Brad DRL-DPS-SRM Direct-Link Gateway Profibus-DP Slave to RS232/485 Serial

Master/Slave [63] to connect to a serial-to-Ethernet media converter [64].

To ensure a proper operation of the Arduino Mega 2560 serial

communication, an Arduino Mega 2560 RS485 library is uploaded to the Arduino

through the Arduino IDE version 1.8.4 installed in the computer (Dell Latitude

E6230).

60

Page 71: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Figure 22 Profibus-DP Simulation Model.

4.3 Design of System

As explained in the Section 4.1 above, since there are two model system

architectures, there are also two separate systems designed to reflect the models – the

local system for real-time control and the Profibus-DP master and slave system.

4.3.1 Model system components and their specifications

4.3.1.1 The Local Cloud System

In this section, we provide the details of specifications and requirements of the

major components (both the hardware and software components) of the model of the

local systems used in this study.

61

Page 72: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

4.3.1.2 Arduino Mega 2560

The Arduino Mega 2560 kit is used as the end device to handle real-time tasks

like a process automation system. The Arduino model control system comprises both

hardware and software. The hardware used in this study is composed of an assembly

of an ATMega3288 microprocessor, prototype board, Ethernet Shield, RS232/RS485

Serial Communication Shield, relays, sensors and LEDs.

Hardware of the Arduino System

The hardware for the control system model is shown in Figure 23 below. The

hardware of the control system model built with Arduino comprises the following:

a. Vilros Ultimate Starter Kit [69], which has Arduino Mega 2560, Arduino and

Breadboard Holder including a breadboard.

b. Ethernet Shield for Arduino Mega 2560 – This unit enables the Arduino to be

connected to the Ethernet network. The picture of the Ethernet shield is shown

in Figure 24 below.

c. RS232/RS484 shield for Arduino Mega 2560 Rev 3 – This is a serial

communication interface module, which is fixed unto the Arduino Mega 2560

board. The picture is shown in Figure 25 below.

Figure 23 Arduino Mega 2560 Control System Model.

62

Page 73: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Figure 24 Arduino Mega 2560 Shield.

Figure 25 Arduino Mega 2560 RS-232 / RS-485 – Hardware [70].

Software for Arduino System

The Software comprises of Arduino IDE version 1.8.4 [65] and libraries used

in this model design are as follows:

63

Page 74: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

a. OneWire Library [66]

This is a library, which provides routines for communication through the

Dallas OneWire protocol; for example, with DS18B20 digital thermometer used in

this study. OneWire is a Master/Slave protocol, and all communication cabling

required is a single wire. It is possible for slave devices on the OneWire bus to even

get their power supply from data line [67].

b. Dallas Temperature library [66];

This library is for temperature control in Arduino Mega 2560 control system

program. It also enables measuring of temperature utilization of DS18B20

temperature sensor, which is used in this thesis study.

c. Hardware Serial RS485-master [66]

This library supports the use of an RS485 transceiver connected to the

Universal Synchronous and Asynchronous Receiver and Transmitter (USART)

(Tx/Rx pins) in a half-duplex, concurrent multi-drop (that is, multi-master, multi-

slave) environment. For this purpose, the software suite provides capabilities for

message addressing and filtering as well as collision detection and collision avoidance

[66].

d. Ethernet Library for Arduino

This library enables the use of Arduino Ethernet (shield or board) to connect

to the internet. It provides both client and server functionalities. And it also enables

the connection of Arduino to local network also with Dynamic Host Configuration

Protocol (DHCP) and to resolve Domain Name Service (DNS) [68].

64

Page 75: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

e. Control System Software Program

The control system software program is a C program of Arduino Ethernet

Web server [69] used to control relay and also monitor temperature of the

environment.

4.3.1.3 Computers

In this study, to model the local cloud system, two computers were used. Their

specifications are stated below:

a. Dell Latitude E6230 laptop – The operating system of this computer is 64-

bits Windows 7 Profession version Service Pack 1. Its processor is Intel Core

i5 with 2.9GHz clock speed. Its random access memory is 4 Gb. The web

server for this study is built in it. It is also used to monitor and record network

traffic parameters. This Web server is a model of the local cloud within a

LAN.

b. HP Desktop Computer – This computer is equipped with Intel Dual-Core

processors. Its operating system is also Windows 7 Profession version Service

Pack 1. This computer is used to run the WANem version 2.3 (WANem

version 2.3) live compact disk (CD) for the simulation of latency, jitters and

packet loss in WAN as well as in LAN. All network traffic is routed through

this computer running WANem so that latency and jitters can be measured and

documented.

4.3.1.4 WANem [71]

WANem is distributed in the form of a bootable CD [71]. It was developed by

TATA Performance Engineering Research Centre, India [71]. It supports various

features such a bandwidth limitation, latency, packet loss, network disconnection

among other WAN characteristics. But in our study, we used WANem to simulate

Ethernet network packet delay and jitters when local cloud is used for real-time

65

Page 76: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

industrial process control. The version used in this study is version 2.3 [72]. After

downloading the iso file of WANem version 2.3, the installation files are burnt to a

CD. Once the personal computer (PC) is booted with the WANem CD and the packets

between the end nodes are routed via WANem, then WANem is ready for use. Using

windows command prompt to create a static route from the Web server to the Arduino

through WANem system, all real-time control traffic are subjected to the preset

latency and jitters in WANem. The differences between the preset parameters and the

actual values monitored through windows command prompt are recorded as the real

latency, jitters and packet losses. These form our data for analysis. The procedure for

starting the WANem PC and getting packets routed via WANem is explained in detail

in the setup guide [73]. The procedure is also explained in Section 4.3 below. The

advanced configuration interface in WANem is shown in Figure 26 below.

Figure 26 WANem Advanced Configuration Interface.

66

Page 77: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

4.3.2 The Profibus DP Simulation System

This simulation system used in this thesis study also comprises some hardware

and software, which enable the acquisition of data for the performance comparative

analysis.

Hardware

The following hardware were used in the study:

a. Dell Latitude E6230 Laptop

This is a 64-bits Personal Computer (Laptop) running on 64-bits Windows 7

Professional operating system. It also has an Intel Core i5 process with 2.9 GHz clock

speed. Its random access memory is 4 GB. This is the same computer used as a Web

server in the local cloud system simulation described in Section 4.2.1.1.2 above.

b. Profibus DP Gateway/slave made by BradCommunication

The model used for this study is Brad DRL-DPS-SRM Direct-Link

Gateway/Profibus-DP Slave module. The picture of the Profibus-DP gateway is

shown in Figure 27 below, while the general characteristics are specified in the

datasheet shown in Figure 28 below.

67

Page 78: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Figure 27 Brad DRL-DPS-SRM Direct-Link Gateway/Profibus-DP Slave Module With 24VDC Power Supply Adapter.

68

Page 79: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Figure 28 General Technical Specifications Brad DRL-DPS-SRM Direct-Link Gateway/Profibus-DP Slave Module [74].

This Profibus DP gateway is used in combination with RS232/RS485 Serial

converter to communicate over a serial bus to the Arduino Control system model.

c. RS232/RS485-to-Ethernet Converter

The c. RS232/RS485-to-Ethernet Converter module used in this study is USR-

TCP232-306 [75] model of USR IOT product. It has RS232 port, RS422/RS485

interface, and RJ45 Ethernet 10/100Mb port. The Ethernet port is connected to the

Arduino Mega 2560 Ethernet shield using Ethernet straight-through cable. The RS232

is connected to the RS232 port of Brad DRL-DPS-SRM Direct-Link

Gateway/Profibus-DP Slave to pass serial communication traffic to the Arduino

control system. The TCP/IP-to-RS232/RS485 converter is shown in Figure 29 below,

whereas the Serial RS232/RS485-to-TCP/IP is shown in Figure 30 below. The remote

server window is configured to have an IP address of the Arduino Mega Ethernet

shield.

69

Page 80: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Figure 29 TCP’IP-TO-RS232/RS485 Converter.

70

Page 81: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

d. A Battery-Powered Oscilloscope (Tektronix THS3000 Series)

Figure 30 Tektronix Portable Oscilloscope (THS3000 Series).

A battery-operated Oscilloscope is used to prevent issues associated with

electrical noise. The following are the key performance specifications of the

Oscilloscope [77]:

• 100 MHz or 200 MHz bandwidth models

• Maximum sample rates up to 5 GS/s and 200 ps resolution

• Four fully isolated and floating channels

• 600 Vrms CAT III, 1000 Vrms CAT II rated inputs (Bayonet Neill–

Concelman [BNC] to earth ground).

The vertical and horizontal characteristics required for accurate measurement

in Profibus-DP network. They are presented as follows [77]:

71

Page 82: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Software for the Profibus-DP Simulation

The most important software for the Profibus-DP simulation is HMS Anybus

Profibus-DP Master Simulator, which is described as follows:

Profibus Master Simulator

Profibus Master Simulator consists of the software and the profibus universal

asynchronous receiver-transmitter (UART), which is a useful interface between

RS232 interface of a personal computer and a profibus slave. This is a user interface

software application used for configuring Profibus-DP master parameters to enable

interaction between the PC-based Profibus-DP Master simulator and the slave

connected in a Profibus network. The simulator processes GSD files from any

manufacturer of Profibus slave interface card. In this study, we used HMS Anybus

72

Page 83: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Profibus-DP Master Simulator [75] for monitoring real-time control traffic between

the Web server and the Arduino control system. It plays a similar role WANem plays

in the local cloud system as mentioned in Section 4.2.1.3 above. The configuration

interface of the Profibus Master Simulator is shown in Figure 31 below.

Figure 31 Configuration Interface of the Profibus Master Simulator.

4.4 Step-by-step Experiment Procedure

The experiments are of two aspects. The first one is to simulate and identify

issues of latency and jitters in using the local cloud system to perform real-time

control using Arduino control system model in a local area control network (LACN).

This involved the use of WANem as a network monitoring and network parameters

simulation application tool. The second one is to use the Profibus-DP Master

Simulator as our monitoring and network parameters simulator. Therefore, the

experiments procedures are subdivided into two for ease of data presentation and data

analysis. Six runs were determined for both experiments using no standards. In other

73

Page 84: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

words, we did not use any criteria to arrive at performing six runs for both

experiments. It was just for the convenience of time available for the experiments due

to challenges of sourcing of material. The same values of latency was used for jitters,

which is a measure of variation of latency or delay in data transmission, just monitor

discrepancies in the delay pattern and also check for data loss as delay increases.

4.4.1 Local Cloud System Experiment in LACN

In this experiment, involving the use of local cloud and WANem setup, real

packets from a live application (Web server, from which real-time ON and OFF

command to the Arduino model control system is issued) are sent to the emulation

server. These real packets are modulated into a simulation packet; in turn, these

packets are demodulated into real packets. These packets have experienced the effects

of loss, delay, network jitters, etc., thereby transferring those network issues into the

real packet. It is as if the real packet had travelled through real networks, when in

reality it has only gone across a simulated network [75].

4.4.2 Method of Latency Measurement

The purpose of this section is to explain why we chose the PING utility as a

reliable method of latency measurement in this experiment. In any networked real-

time system, it is highly necessary for all devices and systems to have the same or

precise time (network time) in order to ensure high accuracy [76]. This is normally

achieved by synchronizing the time of all the networked devices. In which case, very

expensive hardware in the form of a Network Time Server is required. However,

inexpensive alternative to a distributed high-resolution hardware clock is to measure

latency using the reflector method called PING PONG or PINGING [76]. The

reflector test is the standard practice used in Low Latency Messaging performance

74

Page 85: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

benchmarks [76]. It involves a sender transmitting message to the reflector, which

performs both receiving and transmitting functions at the same time. This is shown in

Figure 32 below.

Figure 32 Reflector Process known as the PING PONG (PINGING method).

The work done by IBM [76] helps us to arrive at the formula for calculating

latency for the symmetrical latency test (that is, 1 K messages/second from the sender

to the reflector and 1 K messages/second from the reflector to the receiver); the

following formula was used:

SH1K = RTT1K / 2, (1)

where X is the message rate in messages per seconds from the sender to the

reflector.

SH1K = Single Hop Latency

RTT1K = Round Trip Time

75

Page 86: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Having established the basis for the use of ping utility, the steps undertaken in

the experiments are now presented.

Step 1: In the first step, a network static route or host route was created to

route all network packets to the Arduino model Control system through the WANem

system. This was done by issuing the following command in the windows command

prompt:

route add {destination IP} mask 255.255.255.255 {WANem IP}

route add 192.168.1.111 mask 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.9,

where the IP address of the Arduino model control system 192.168.1.111 and

that of WANem system is 192.168.1.9.

Step 2: Latency, jitters and packet loss are configured in the WANem

advanced interface as shown in Figure 33 below. The latency and jitters are set in

multiples of 10 ms.

Figure 33 Advanced Configuration Interface of WANem.

76

Page 87: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Step 3: We then continuously pinged the IP address (192.168.1.111) of the

Arduino model Control system (192.168.1.111) from the web server and recorded the

outcome. The continuous ping command is issued in the windows command prompt

of the web server as follows:

Ping 192.168.1.111 –t

Step 4: Record the average response time of the ping command when no real-

time command is issued on the web page of the Arduino. Then, while the continuous

pinging is still on, we opened the web page of the Arduino through a web browser in

the Web server and issued an ON command. We observed if any change in the

response time of the ping reply occurred and recorded it. We later issued an OFF

command and observed and recorded the response time. The observation showed no

difference because the ping command represents the real-time command. Figures 34a

and 34b below show the web interface for issuing the ON an OFF command to the

Arduino model control system.

Figure 34a Arduino Model Control System Web interface for Real-Time Control When the ON Command is Issued.

77

Page 88: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Figure 34b Arduino Model Control System Web Interface for Real-Time Control When the OFF Command is Issued.

Step 5: The result is recorded and a summary table was created as shown in

Table 10 below. The details of the result are presented in Chapter 5 of this report.

4.4.3 Profibus-DP Model Control System Experiment

In this section, we provide the steps taken to simulate the control signal in a

Profibus-DP network.

Step 1: The female DB9 connector of a serial cable with alternate male DB9

connector is connected to the COM port of Dell Latitude E6230 laptop docking

station. The alternate male DB9 of the serial cable is connected to an RS232-to-

Profibus Converter. The converter is then connected to the RS232 port of the

BradCommunications DRL-DPS-SRM Direct-Link Gateway/Profibus-DP Slave

module.

78

Page 89: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Step 2: The RS232 output of the BradCommunications DRL-DPS-SRM

Direct-Link Gateway/Profibus-DP Slave module is then connected to RS232.RS485-

to-TCP converter. The switch on the Profibus-DP gateway is set to transmit through

EIA R485 serial communication.

Step 3: The RS232/RS485-to-TCP converter is connected to the Arduino

Mega 2560 model control system.

Step 4: The communication settings in the Profibus Master simulators are

configured. The COM port and the Master address are selected in the communication

configuration interface as shown in Figure 35 below.

Figure 35 Profibus Master Simulator Communication Settings Configuration Interface.

Step 5: The GSD file for the BradCommunications Profibus-DP gateway is

selected and the input and output parameters are selected. This is to define input

data/output data. This is shown in Figure 36 below.

79

Page 90: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Figure 36 Selection of the GSD File and the Input/Output Parameters.

Step 6: The battery-operated Oscilloscope (Tektronix THS3000 Series) is set

to time division on both channels A and B to measure Voltage over time to ensure the

round trip time is measured simulated data from the Profibus Master Simulator. The

time is adjusted to milliseconds, while the voltage is adjusted to millivolts.

Step 7: Delay is captured using a battery-operated Oscilloscope, whose serial

port is set to RS485 and connected to the output RS485 terminal of the

BradCommunications Profibus-DP gateway.

Step 8: Data is inputted through the Profibus Master Simulator as shown in

Figure 37 below. The response is measured via the Oscilloscope. The readings of the

time response are tabulated in Table 11 below.

80

Page 91: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Figure 37 Data Input Through Profibus Master Simulator.

Table 11 Response Time as Converted From Digital Oscilloscope.

Profibus-

DP

Latency

(ms)

0.0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

81

Page 92: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

5.1 Introduction

The results and analysis are presented in this chapter. The local cloud model

control system is first presented, followed by the Profibus-DP network delay tests.

5.2 Result of Local Cloud Model System Experiment

The experiment was conducted using the following six-pair latency and jitters

values as shown in Table 12 below. A note here is that jitter is defined in this context

as variation in delay.

Table 12 Result of the Local Cloud Model System Experiments.

Experiment Simulated

Latencies (ms)

Simulated Jitters (ms)

1 0 0

2 10 10

3 20 20

4 30 30

5 40 40

6 50 50

82

Page 93: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Experiment 1, Simulation 1:

Ping utility was used without connection to the WAN/LAN emulator system

(WANem system) to check for proper connectivity and delay and the Arduino Model

Control System output actual was switched ON and OFF. The ping result is shown in

Figure 38 below. Both simulated latency and jitters were zero.

Figure 38 Simulation 1 Experiment Ping Result. This is Without WAN/LAN Emulator (WANem).

Experiment 1, Simulation 2:

In simulation 2, the WAN/LAN emulator system (WANem) was connected

and a static route was created via the WANem system. The ping utility was used to

test for the latency. Figure 39 below shows the response from the ping utility. Both

the values of simulated latency and jitters were 10 ms.

83

Page 94: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Figure 39 Result of Ping Response in Experiment 1, Simulation 2.

The screenshot in Figure 39 shows that the average round trip time from the

ping utility when simulated latency and jitters were set at 10 ms is 32 ms. The latency

was calculated approximately when the average round trip time (RTTavg) is divided

by two [73]. Therefore, latency for Simulation 1 is

RTTavg/2 (2)

[73][76]

Therefore, Latency for Experiment 1 Simulation 2 = 32 ms/2 = 16 ms

Experiment 1, Simulation 3:

In this Simulation 3, Simulated Latency = 20 ms, Simulated Jitters = 20 ms.

Results are shown in Figure 40 below.

84

Page 95: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Figure 40 Result of Ping Response in Experiment 1, Simulation 3.

The result shows that the average round trip time was 45 ms, which means that

the latency was 45/2 = 22.5 ms.

Experiment 1, Simulation 4:

In this Simulation 4, the Simulated Latency = 30 ms, Simulated Jitters = 30

ms. Results are shown in Figure 41 below.

Figure 41 Result of Ping Response in Experiment 1, Simulation 4.

85

Page 96: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

The result showed that the average round trip time was 72 ms; therefore, using

the following equation:

RTTavg/2, the latency was found to be 72 ms/2 = 36 ms

(3)

Experiment 1, Simulation 5:

In Simulation 5, Simulated Latency = 40 ms, Simulated Jitters = 40 ms.

Results are shown in Figure 42 below.

Figure 42 Result of Ping Response in Experiment 1, Simulation 5.

The average round trip time was 91 ms. Therefore, latency was 91/2 = 45.5

ms.

Experiment 1, Simulation 6:

Experiment when Simulated Latency = 50 ms, Simulated Jitters = 50 ms.

Results are shown in Figure 43 below.

86

Page 97: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Figure 43 Result of Ping Response in Experiment 1, Simulation 6.

The average round trip time, RTTavg = 161 ms. Therefore, latency was 161/2 =

80.5 ms.

87

Page 98: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

5.3 Local Cloud Experiment Result Summary

Table 13 Summary of the Local Cloud Model System.

Data Transmission rate (Mbit/s)

Expected Response Time (ms)

Simulated Latency (ms)

Simulated Jitters (ms)

Average Round Trip Time (ms)

Link Latency (RTTavg/2)

(ms)

Jitters

Observed

(ms)

100 <1 0 0 0 0 0.0600197

100 <1 10 10 32 16 13.47654

100 <1 20 20 45 22.5 25.8442

100 <1 30 30 72 36 36.2994

100 <1 40 40 91 45.5 47.7988

100 <1 50 50 161 80.5 67.4744

The result summary in Table 13 above gives us the following summary of the

latency or delay in the local cloud model control system:

Latency (ms) 0.0 16 22.5 36 45.5 80.5

These latencies are used as sample variables for T-test analysis.

88

Page 99: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

5.4 Profibus-DP Experiment Result Summary

The summary of the Profibus Simulation experiment has been provided in

Section 4.3.2. as:

Profibus-DP

Latency (ms)

0.0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

5.5 Analysis

T-test is the procedure used for the analysis of results of the two simulations,

the local cloud model control system and the model Profibus-DP Network for

mimicking real-time control. The software application used for the T-test IBM-SPSS

has been developed by IBM. The results of the simulations have been tabulated in

Table 14 below.

89

Page 100: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Table 14 Results from the Two Simulations.

Time Local Cloud Latency

(ms)

Profibus-DP Latency

(ms)

Time 1 0 0

Time 2 16 0.05

Time 3 22.5 0.1

Time 4 36 0.15

Time 5 45.5 0.2

Time 6 80.5 0.25

This table was used for the analysis in IBM-SPSS software application.

5.5.1 T-Test Procedure

T-Test

T-TEST

/TESTVAL=0

/MISSING=ANALYSIS

/VARIABLES=LCLatency PDLatency

/CRITERIA=CI(.95).

* Chart Builder.

GGRAPH

/GRAPHDATASET NAME="graphdataset" VARIABLES=TIME MEAN

(LCLatency) MEAN(PDLatency)

MISSING=LISTWISE REPORTMISSING=NO

90

Page 101: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

TRANSFORM=VARSTOCASES(SUMMARY="#SUMMARY"

INDEX="#INDEX")

/GRAPHSPEC SOURCE=INLINE.

BEGIN GPL

SOURCE: s=userSource(id("graphdataset"))

DATA: TIME=col(source(s), name("TIME"), unit.category())

DATA: SUMMARY=col(source(s), name("#SUMMARY"))

DATA: INDEX=col(source(s), name("#INDEX"), unit.category())

GUIDE: axis(dim(1), label("Time"))

GUIDE: axis(dim(2), label("Mean"))

GUIDE: legend(aesthetic(aesthetic.color.interior), label(""))

SCALE: cat(dim(1), sort.natural())

SCALE: linear(dim(2), include(0))

SCALE: cat(aesthetic(aesthetic.color.interior), include("0", "1"))

ELEMENT: line(position(TIME*SUMMARY), color.interior(INDEX),

missing.wings())

END GPL.

91

Page 102: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

N Mean Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Local Cloud Latency

6 33.4167 27.95964 11.41448

Profibus-DP Latency

6 .1250 .09354 .03819

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 0

T df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Local Cloud Latency

2.928 5 .033 33.41667 4.0748 62.7585

Profibus-DP Latency

3.273 5 .022 .12500 .0268 .2232

92

Page 103: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

Graph

TimeLocal Cloud Latency

Profibus-DP Latency

Time 1 0 0Time 2 16 0.05Time 3 22.5 0.1Time 4 36 0.15Time 5 45.5 0.2Time 6 80.5 0.25

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Chart Title

Local Cloud Latency Profibus-DP Latency

93

Page 104: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

5.5.2 Result of Analysis

The result of the analysis clearly shows that Profibus-DP is more reliable for

real-time control than local cloud system because it responds faster. And it has less

network challenge when compared with that in IP-based systems.

5.5.3 Recommendations

This study is geared toward recommending further studies that would create

opportunity for building industrial network systems, which would provide a

combination of the following capabilities:

Real-time control with minimal latencies and jitters as being experienced in

cloud system

Fast data computing and processing

Remote site accessibility with speed and reliability

Very high storage

Heterogeneous, non-proprietory and highly interoperable in nature.

94

Page 105: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

REFERENCES

[1] Jim Pinto; Industrial Automation and the Cloud: https://www.

automationworld.com/article/topics/cloud-computing/industrial-automation-

and-cloud

[2] Ms. Latha D S, Deputy General manager and Mr. K. Jayaprakash, General

Manager – Instrumentation and controls, Tata Consulting Engineers; Article:

The Rise of Cloud Computing in Industrial Process – https://

www.automation.com/automation-news/article/the-rise-of-cloud-computing-

in-industrial-process-automationAutomation

[3] Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog_computing

[4] Professor Jerker Delsing, LuLea University of Technology, Sweden:

Automation Systems from IoT Arrowhead Framework: concepts and basic

architecture. www.arrowhead.eu

[5] Prof. Dr.-Ing. Reinhard Langmann, FH Düsseldorf, Competence Center

Automation Düsseldorf (CCAD); An article published on Industrial Ethernet

Book website: http://www.iebmedia.com/?id=9254&parentid=74&themeid=

255&showdetail=true&bb=true

[6] VDI/VDE-Gesellschaft Mess und Automatisierungstechnik (GMA). Cyber-

physical systems: Chancen und nutzen aus sicht der automation. Thesen und

Handlungsfelder, April 2013.

[7] Jerker Delsing; IoT Automation – Arrowhead Framework, 2017.

95

Page 106: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

[8] Sunit Kumar Sen; Fieldbus and Networking in Process Automation, CRC

Press, 2014.

[9] Technical Information by Yokogawa: TI 38K03A01-01E, 2002.

[10] IEC61158 Technology Comparison – State of the Bus; Fieldbus Inc.

[11] Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieldbus

[12] Fieldbus Comparison: http://www.er-soft.com/files/media/files/ER-Soft--

Fieldbus--Comparison--Chart.pdf

[13] Profibus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profibus

[14] Profibus International: PROFIBUS System Description Technology and

Application.

[15] Smar – Profibus Protocol: http://www.smar.com/en/profibus

[16] http://profibus.felser.ch/en/index.html?synchrone_-_mbp_installation.htm

[17] Song, S. Han, A. K. Mok, D. Chen, M. Lucas, M. Nixon, and W. Pratt.

Wirelesshart: Applying wireless technology in real-time industrial process

control. IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and applications

Symposium, 2008. St. Louis, USA.

[18] R. Langmann and L. Meyer, “Automation services from the cloud,” in 11th

IEEE International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual

Instrumentation (REV), 2014, pp. 256–261.

[19] Richard Zurawski; Industrial Communication Technology, Second Edition,

CRC Press, 2015.

96

Page 107: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

[20] http://www.guru99.com/cloud-computing-for-beginners.html

[21] F. Bonomi, R. Milito, J. Zhu, and S. Addepalli, “Fog computing and its role in

the internet of things,” in Proceedings of the 1st edition of the MCC workshop

on Mobile cloud computing, pp. 13–16, ACM, 2012.

[22] How fog computing pushes IoT intelligence to the edge – https://

techcrunch.com/2016/08/02/how-fog-computing-pushes-iot-intelligence-to-

the-edge/

[23] Fog Computing in an Industrial Context – http://www.controldesign.com/

articles/2017/fog-computing-in-an-industrial-context/

[24] L. M. Vaquero and L. Rodero-Merino, “Finding your Way in the Fog:

Towards a Comprehensive Definition of Fog Computing,” SIGCOMM

Computer Communication Review, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 27–32, 2014.

[25] Alma Didic and Pavlos Nikolaidis: Real-time Control in Industrial Internet of

Things (IoT), Malardalen University, School of Innovation Design and

Engineering, Vasteras, Sweden, 2015.

[26] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): https://www.nist.

gov/news-events/news/2011/10/final-version-nist-cloud-computing-definition

-published

[27] Cloud Computing Tutorial by tutorialspoint.com

[28] Peter Mell and Tim Grance; Formal definition of cloud computing by NIST.

97

Page 108: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

[29] Bill Lydon, Intech Editor-in-Chief; Article: How Cloud Computing Delivers a

New Industrial Automation Tool for Improving Operations, Intech Magazine,

June, 2015.

[30] V. A. Kumar and E. Prasad, “Fog Computing: Characteristics, Advantages

and Security Privacy,” International Journal of Computer Science and

Management Research, vol. 3, no. 11, 2014.

[31] Stojmenovic, “Fog computing: A cloud to the ground support for smart things

and machine-to-machine networks,” in Australasian Telecommunication

Networks and Applications Conference (ATNAC), pp. 117–122, 2014.

[32] M. Yannuzzi, R. Milito, R. Serral-Gracia, D. Montero, and M. Nemirovsky,

“Key ingredients in an IoT recipe: Fog Computing, Cloud computing, and

more Fog Computing,” in 19th IEEE International Workshop on Computer

Aided Modeling and Design of Communication Links and Networks

(CAMAD), pp. 325–329, 2014.

[33] National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST) Cloud Computing

reference architecture (SP 500-292), 2011.

[34] National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST) Cloud Computing

definition publication (800-145), 2011.

[35] Torry Harris; Cloud Computing Overview: http://www.thbs.com/thbs-

insights/cloud-computing-overview

[36] Nisha Peter, “FOG Computing and Its Real Time Applications”, published in

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering:

98

Page 109: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume

5, Issue 6, June 2015).

[37] Shabnam Kumari1, Surender Singh and Radha; “Fog Computing:

Characteristics and Challenges”, published in International Journal of

Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering: www.ijettcs.org Email:

[email protected] Volume 6, Issue 2, March–April 2017.

[38] Flavio Bonomi, Rodolfo Milito, Jiang Zhu, and Sateesh Addepalli, “Fog

Computing and Its Role in the Internet of Things”, Cisco System Inc.

[39] F. Bonomi, R. Milito, P. Natarajan, and J. Zhu, “Fog computing: A platform

for Internet of Things and analytics,” in Big Data and Internet of Things: A

Roadmap for Smart Environments (Studies in Computational Intelligence).

New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2014, pp. 169–186.

[40] NIKHIL SABU; FOG COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY: https://www.

slideshare.net/NikhilSabu/fog-computing-technology

[41] Charles C. Byers and Patrick Wetterwald: Fog Computing: Distributing data

and intelligence for resiliency and scale necessary for IoT.

[42] Eva Marín Tordera*, Xavi Masip-Bruin, Jordi García-Almiñana, Admela

Jukan Guang-Jie Ren, Jiafeng Zhu , Josep Farré†: What is a Fog Node? A

Tutorial on Current Concepts towards a Common Definition.

[43] https://www.rtinsights.com/what-is-fog-computing-open-consortium/

99

Page 110: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

[44] R. Langmann and L. Meyer, “Automation services from the cloud,” in 11th

IEEE International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual

Instrumentation (REV), 2014, pp. 256–261.

[45] H. Sequeira, P. J. Carreira, T. Goldschmidt, and P. Vorst, “Energy Cloud:

real-time cloud-native Energy Management System to monitor and analyze

energy consumption in multiple industrial sites,” in 7th IEEE/ACM

International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing (UCC), 2014.

[46] O. Givehchi, H. Trsek, and J. Jasperneite, “Cloud computing for industrial

automation systems – A comprehensive overview,” in 18th IEEE Conference

on Emerging Technologies & Factory Automation (ETFA), 2013, pp. 1–4.

[47] O. Givehchi, J. Imtiaz, H. Trsek, and J. Jasperneite, “Control-as-a-service

from the cloud: A case study for using virtualized PLCs,” in 10th IEEE

Workshop on Factory Communication Systems, 2014.

[48] W. Zhang, M. S. Branicky, and S. M. Phillips, “Stability of networked control

systems,” Control Systems, IEEE, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 84–99, 2001.

[49] J. P. Hespanha, P. Naghshtabrizi, and Y. Xu, “A survey of recent results in

networked control systems,” Proceesings of the IEEE, vol. 95, no. 1, 2007.

[50] T. C. Yang, “Networked control system: a brief survey,” IEE Proceedings-

Control Theory and Applications, vol. 153, no. 4, 2006.

[51] T. Hegazy and M. Hefeeda, “Industrial automation as a cloud service,” IEEE

Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1,

2015.

100

Page 111: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

[52] CISCO; Fog Computing and the Internet of Things: Extend the Cloud to

Where the Things Are: http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/solutions/trends/

iot/docs/computing-overview.pdf

[53] ISA, “International standard for the integration of enterprise and control

systems.” http://www.isa-95.com/ [Online; Accessed 20-May-2015].

[54] D. S. Hira; System Simulation, Second Edition, 2008.

[55] Arrowhead Technical Architecture: https://forge.soa4d.org/plugins/media

wiki/wiki/arrowhead-f/index.php?title=Technical_architecture&printable=yes

[56] Csaba Heged. Us, Daniel Kozma, Gabor Soos and Pal Varga; Enhancements

of the Arrowhead Framework to Refine Inter-cloud Service Interactions.

[57] Jerker Delsing, Jens Eliasson, Jan van Deventer, Hasan Derhamy, Pal Varga;

Enabling IoT automation using local clouds.

[58] Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_architecture

[59] Simulation and Model Team; http://www.uh.edu/~lcr3600/simulation/

contents.html

[60] https://www.anybus.com/products/gateway-index/specific-gateways/master-

simulators/detail/profibus-master-simulator

[61] http://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/cty/pdp/spd/latitude-e6230

[62] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i5_microprocessors

[63] https://ark.intel.com/products/71256/Intel-Core-i5-3380M-Processor-3M-

Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz

101

Page 112: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

[64] http://www.usr.so/product-category/serial-to-ethernet/rs232-rs485-rs422-to-

ethernet-converter/?gclid=CjwKCAjw6szOBRAFEiwAwzixBRQXZyLX6

pyhZugtbTW8PF4SyxeUDXnC2lHaPkZBDYt75qbSjMSGSRoC6aQQAvD_

BwE

[65] https://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/Software

[66] https://github.com/MichaelJonker/HardwareSerialRS485

[67] https://download.mikroe.com/documents/compilers/mikroc/pic/help/onewire_

library.htm

[68] Michael Jonker; https://github.com/MichaelJonker/HardwareSerialRS485/

wiki

[69] Rui Santos and Sara Santos Random Nerd Tutorials: Arduino Step-by-step

Projects Build 25 projects! Version 2.0

[70] https://www.embarcados.com.br/arduino-rs-232-rs-485-hardware/

[71] http://wanem.sourceforge.net/documentation.html

[72] http://wanem-wide-area-network-emulator.soft112.com/

[73] WANem 1.1 Wide Area Network Emulator User Guide; Performance

Engineering Research Centre, April 27, 2007.

[74] http://www.molex.com/molex/products/datasheet.jsp?part=active/1120260013

_NETWORK_INTERFACE.xml&channel=Products&Lang=en-US

[75] http://www.m2optics.com/blog/wanem-delay-simulator

102

Page 113: PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIELDBUS SYSTEM … · LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Hierarchical Control System based on the Arrow-Head Framework.....2 Figure 2 Decomposition of the utomation

[76] IBM; Measuring Latency – https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/

en/SSQPD3_2.6.0/com.ibm.wllm.doc/measuringlatency.html

[77] https://www.tek.com/datasheet/ths3000-series-handheld-oscilloscopes-data

sheet

[78] Ben Dickson; How fog computing pushes IoT intelligence to the edge.

[79] Omid Givehchi, Henning Trsek, and Juergen Jasperneite; Cloud Computing

for Industrial Automation Systems – A Comprehensive Overview; IEEE

Publication, 2013.

[80] B. Vogel-Heuser, G. Kegel, K. Bender, and K. Wucherer. Global information

architecture for industrial automation. Automatisierungstechnische Praxis

(atp), Oldenbourg-Verlag, Muenchen, 2009.

[81] Omid Givehchi, Jurgen Jasperneite; Industrial Automation Services as part of

the Cloud: First Experiences, 2015.

[82] Jochen Schlick, Peter Stephan, and Thomas Greiner. Kontext, Dienste und

Cloud Computing – Eigenschaften und Anwendungen cyber-physischer

Systeme. atp edition, 04, 2013.

[83] TAO Jun, WANG Zhan-lin, Analysis of PROFIBUS.DP Network Delay and

Its Influence on the Performance of Control Systems, 2005.

103


Recommended